Article: Baldelli’s the Guy, Now What?

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Shorten the season. That will help with player focus and likely reduce fatigue related injuries. IMO, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 is plenty to discern which teams are contenders and which are pretenders.

Will it happen? Well, if ratings and attendance keep trending down, yes. I think it is inevitable. Soon? Probably not. Doing so would kind of be a desperation move to keep the league alive. They aren’t there yet. If the numbers continue to go south for another 10-15 years, owners might be ready to try more drastic measures.

 

 

I agree with reducing the number of games during the season but I don't agree with bringing it down to 100. The owners would never go for it because they would lose out on a ton of money from attendance and sponsors. I could see them decreasing to 148 - 152 games. Start the season a week later and give the teams an extra day or two off each month. They could also increase the roster size to 26 players and have a set number of position players vs pitchers - make it 13 each.

[Riverbrian]

 

No one operates at 100% in game 84, not even Pete Rose. Sure, he operated at a higher level than most but no human being operates at 100% all the time. We're literally not wired to work that way, our brains actually can't maintain that kind of frenetic pace in perpetuity (thanks, mammalian ancestry!).

 

Expecting an athlete to maintain 100% intensity for 3 hours a day, 162 games a year is unreasonable.

 

That doesn't give players an excuse to skate or loaf when there's a legitimate chance to make a play but it does mean I don't get too worked up when a guy jogs out an IFFB in June.

 

Give me a good, solid effort 100% of the time. When it really matters that you leg out that extra inch or throw the ball just a little bit harder, lay it out and go for it... but no one should expect the latter effort day in, day out of a 162 game season.

 

Isn't this what I was saying? Look at the co-worker next to you on a routine Wednesday? 

 

I was just responding to this quote from SF Twins Fan. 

 

This is one thing I will never understand. If professional players can't get themselves up for a game they're driven to play and are getting paid huge amounts of money for they shouldn't be on the field. Maybe it's just the way I'm wired but throughout my playing days, whether it be baseball, football, lacrosse or any other sport I never relied on any coach, manager or even team member to get me up for a game or make sure I was mentally ready. For me, when it was game time I was ready to go.

 

This is why a manager who can motivate is necessary. This is why a manager is necessary at Walmart for those routine Wednesday's and Aisle 14 is out of Goldfish. 

[laloesch]

TOTAL REBUILD.  Trade EVERYBODY and i mean EVERYBODY!  Gut the farm, gut the major league team, fire every coach and scout and start fresh.

[yarnivek1972]

I agree with reducing the number of games during the season but I don't agree with bringing it down to 100. The owners would never go for it because they would lose out on a ton of money from attendance and sponsors. I could see them decreasing to 148 - 152 games. Start the season a week later and give the teams an extra day or two off each month. They could also increase the roster size to 26 players and have a set number of position players vs pitchers - make it 13 each.

I don’t want to swing too far off topic in this thread, but I don’t think we’ll see a game reduction until the owners are scrambling to keep the league alive. As I said, 10-15 more years of declining attendance and ratings might do that. But 10-12 games is not going to move the needle. A 100 game schedule would eliminate the weekday games that see lower attendance.